Category Archives: nuclear weapons

In case you had any doubts as to whether the “interim” agreement with Iran on nuclear technology that Barack Obama and John Kerry foisted on the world in the dead of night over the weekend was a terrible development, the world’s foremost Shia Jihadist terrorist organization has provided confirmation:

Lebanon’s Hezbollah on Monday hailed a nuclear deal between its patron Iran and world powers as “a major victory” for Tehran.

“What was achieved through this agreement is a major victory for Iran and to all the people of the region and it is a defeat for the enemies of these people,” Hezbollah said in a statement.

“(It is) a model victory and world class achievement which the Islamic state adds to its record which shines with victories and achievements.”

There are many people in America who don’t know just who Hezbollah is. For those of you who need a reminder, Hezbollah is the Jihadist terrorist wing of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Their stated goal is to establish an Islamic state in the Middle East ruled by Shariah. They have a long record of killing Americans, stretching back to 1982 and 1983 with Islamikaze truck bomb attacks on the US embassy and US Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, a host of hostage-takings and murders of Americans in Beirut in the remainder of the 1980s and active involvement in the insurgency against US forces in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

This is not the first time that Barack Obama has pleased Hezbollah. Not long ago, he allowed Ali Mussa Daqduq, a high-level Hezbollah operative responsible for torturing and killing several US Army soldiers, to go free in Iraq…

Al Qaeda’s leaders yearn to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction against the United States; if they acquired a nuclear bomb, they would not hesitate to use it.

The evidence for those intentions aren’t hidden in encoded communications or classified intelligence. Quite the opposite: They’re hidden in plain sight. Just as Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa to declare war on the United States in 1998, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a fatwa a decade later to herald a prospective next stage in the conflict. If we take him at his word, some day jihadists will use weapons of mass destruction to change history once and for all.

Of course, al Qaeda leaders have spoken of acquiring weapons of mass destruction for well over a decade. They have had little observable success in achieving their goals of producing a nuclear bomb or biological weapon capable of producing mass casualties. Fortunately, it is extremely difficult, but not impossible, for a terrorist group to acquire a strategic weapon of mass destruction (WMD). Nonetheless, the al Qaeda core has kept at it over the years, in the hopes that time and opportunity will enable it to overcome the daunting challenges in this regard.

What has changed recently is that the goal is no longer theoretical, but operational — a change spurred by Zawahiri’s intervention. Rather than follow bin Laden in issuing a religious edict, Zawahiri chose to release a book in 2008 titled Exoneration. In it, he resurrects a fatwa issued by senior Saudi cleric Nasir al-Fahd in May 2003 — notoriously, the only such treatise that ever endorsed the use of WMD. Zawahiri adopts Fahd’s ideas wholesale. He uses the same ideas, thoughts, examples, and scholarly citations to reach the same conclusion: The use of nuclear weapons would be justified as an act of equal retaliation, “repaying like for like.”

Zawahiri raises key Quranic themes to sweep away all potential objections to the use of WMD. He offers answers to questions about the legality of killing women, children, and the elderly; the justice of environmental destruction; the morality of harming noncombatants; the tactical prudence of attacking at night; and analyses of deterrence. Zawahiri adopts Fahd’s examples verbatim: The Prophet Mohammed’s attack on the village of al-Taif using a catapult, for instance, permits the use of weapons of “general destruction” incapable of distinguishing between innocent civilians and combatants.

The U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency will likely consider a special inspection of Syria to answer nagging questions over its nuclear activities, the U.S. ambassador to the organization said Tuesday.

Glyn Davies said a number of countries on the IAEA’s board of governors support plans to invoke the rarely used sanction.

Like Iran, Syria is suspected of hiding weapons-related nuclear activities and has blocked access to a suspected nuclear site destroyed by Israeli warplanes in September 2007.

“We need to keep the focus very much on Iran — but stay tuned on Syria, because Syria I think would love to just stave off any serious action to get to the bottom of what they were doing,” Davies told reporters in London.

A recent IAEA report said that uranium particles found at the Dair Alzour desert facility indicate possible covert nuclear activities. The finding supported Western allegations that the bombed target was a nearly completed nuclear reactor which the U.S. alleges was of North Korean design and intended to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

Linked below is an excellent article by Jim Kouri of the National Association of the Chiefs of Police about America’s continued vulnerability due to our lack of border security.

In fact, that vulnerability includes a very real threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). WMD can take many forms unfortunately, including a nuclear bomb, chemical munitions, or biological agents.

Another type of WMD that has received a certain amount of publicity in recent years is the so-called “dirty bomb.” Technically referred to as a “radiological” weapon, a dirty bomb presents more detection challenges than a conventional nuclear bomb because the dirty bomb can be much more compact.

Fortunately, a dirty bomb is far less destructive than a nuclear bomb.

However, a dirty bomb could rather easily be concealed in the back of a minivan or pick-up truck and driven across our northern or southern border.

It turns out that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a test of our border security and pretty much found that it wouldn’t be much of a problem to transport just about any form of WMD into the USA from Mexico or Canada…

It has long been feared that all or a portion of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of Jihadist terrorists.

There are numerous scenarios in which this might happen, ranging from a raid by a terrorist group to capture a warhead to the government of Pakistan being overthrown by Jihadists in a coup d’etat, with the new Jihadist rulers gaining control over the country’s arsenal.

So far, fortunately, none of these scenarios has come close to happening, but there IS a report in the UK Telegraph that terrorists have in fact targeted some of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities…

In the video below, President Obama is asked if his policies toward North Korea and Iran are accomplishing anything, other than buying those two nations time to expand their nuclear programs.

This was a surprisingly excellent question from the media–and one that could only have been asked overseas. There is simply no way in hell that any member of the lapdog White House press corps, which may as well be a branch of the administration staff, would have sacked up to ask this question.

Predictably, Obama, sans teleprompter, stuttered and stammered his way clumsily through a non-answer. Watch as French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose administration led negotiations with Iran for some time and was critical of Obama’s naivete’ regarding Iran, is clearly uncomfortable sitting next to Obama as our president pratfalls his way through his attempt at an answer:

There is much that is troubling about Obama’s answer, besides his obvious inability to articulate on the subject.

He appears to be taking shots at the Bush administration by stating repeatedly that North Korea will no longer be rewarded for bad behavior.

But the fact is, his policy toward North Korea is EXACTLY a continuance of the Bush policy: We’ve got Russia and China on our side…

Russia and China are NOT on our side here. China in particular has a long history of supplying arms to North Korea. Without Russia and China, in fact, North Korea’s nuclear program would be a group of physicists in a lab conducting experiments and nothing more.

It is especially ironic that Obama is attempting to distance himself from the Bush policies given that he himself personally selected the architect of the Bush policy toward North Korea, Christopher R. Hill, to be ambassador to Iraq, where, even more ominously, he will no doubt have to interact with the neighboring Iranians. Obama picked him over the desires of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who wanted retired Marine General Anthony Zinni for the Iraq ambassadorship. This is an indication of just how impressed Obama is with Hill.

We can only shudder to think what Hill might give away to appease the Iranians. He had North Korea taken off the terrorist-sponsoring list, above the objections of US ally Japan, because of their perceived “cooperation” on their nuclear program, only to watch with his thumb up his you-know-where as they went back on those agreements after the fact. If there is one man in the United States of America who we do NOT want dealing with the Iranians, it is Christopher R. Hill.

Note in the video that Obama completely ignores the issue of Iran. He does not even attempt to answer that part of the question and basically covers up the Iranians’ actions:

1. Like North Korea, Iran has also conducted ballistic missile tests.

2. Iran has announced that they are now spinning 7200 centrifuges–in violation of international treaties and UN Security Council resolutions.

3. Iran has refused to cooperate with IAEA inspectors–again, in violation of international treaties and UN Security Council resolutions.

4. Iran continues to supply heavy weapons to the Taliban, which the Taliban use to kill US GIs in Afghanistan